PRESTOPUNDIT

It's still 1930 in the world of academic labor history.

UPDATE: Lisa Mary Wichowski sends the following to the LIB/CON list:

As my placard in the academic freakshow reads I am the "world's only conservative/libertarian labor historian," I often find myself defending persons and ideas from those on the far opposite end of the spectrum (George Bush and Martha Stewart most recently). Now however I feel that I must defend labor historians from similar attack. Mr Lewis makes two mistakes in his essay 1) tarring with a very wide brush, 2)misreading the fundamental flaw of most labor historians. Discussion lists like H-Labor are generally have a pretty diverse readership. The main posters to any discussion are those with the most radical positions. Those who feel most passionately are those that make the most noise. Posting in this discussion were McCartin and Dubofsky, and they certainly are on the far left. For every David Roediger however, there is an Eric Arnesen. Most of the labor historians I have met are not Communists, they are instead New Deal Liberals-bad enough, but certainly nothing to be damned for. ILWICH does not attempt to hide it's politics, but neither does Labor History a more mainstream but certainly still quite liberal journal. Mr Lewis misses what may be a more important problem in labor history. It's not that labor historians are Marxists but that most Marxists have never labored. This is the same in any area there are self appointed spokesmen for a group, such as feminists supporting women's empowerment in third world countries. The middle class academics believe that they would feel deprived if they were working class. They feel that all the world should have safe, cushy, lifetime employment just like they do, after all, look how happy they are.